A proposed bill in Iraq's parliament has sparked widespread outrage and concern, as it seeks to reduce the legal age of marriage for girls to just 9 years old.

Archived version

A proposed bill in Iraq’s parliament has sparked widespread outrage and concern, as it seeks to reduce the legal age of marriage for girls to just 9 years old. The controversial legislation, introduced by the Iraq Justice Ministry, aims to amend the country’s Personal Status Law, which currently sets the minimum age for marriage at 18.

The bill would allow citizens to choose between religious authorities or the civil judiciary to decide on family affairs. Critics fear this will lead to a slashing of rights in matters of inheritance, divorce, and child custody.

If passed, the bill would allow girls as young as 9 and boys as young as 15 to wed, sparking fears of increased child marriage and exploitation. Critics argue that this regressive move would undermine decades of progress in promoting women’s rights and gender equality.

Human rights organizations, women’s groups, and civil society activists have vehemently opposed the bill, warning of serious consequences for young girls’ education, health, and well-being. They argue that child marriage leads to increased dropout rates, early pregnancies, and a heightened risk of domestic violence.

According to the United Nations children’s agency, UNICEF, 28 percent of girls in Iraq are already married before the age of 18.

“Passing this law would show a country moving backward, not forwards,” Human Rights Watch (HRW) researcher Sarah Sanbar said.

  • thefartographer@lemm.ee
    23·
    3 months ago

    That’s horrifying. Similarly, if not more horrifying, is that’s 9 years older than some states in the US legally require

        • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          19·
          3 months ago

          That’s contradicted by the link content.

          Michigan: The age of consent is 18. With parental consent, a person can marry at 16.

          Mississippi: The age of consent is 21. With parental consent, males can marry at 17, and females can marry at 15.

          Washington: The age of consent is 18. With judicial approval, a person can marry at 17.

          The others you listed do set minimum ages, usually as age of consent, but those can be overridden with a court order.

          Also, you put that text in quotes, but I don’t see it anywhere in that page, which is very misleading to do.

          Edit: I was mistaken, this line was at the end of the article.

          • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
            11·
            3 months ago

            The major, glaring issue of an instance not allowing downvotes is that bad/misleading information is free to be posted unchallenged. Be better, Beehaw.

          • thefartographer@lemm.ee
            6·
            3 months ago

            Why are y’all making me do your research for you?

            Also, you put that text in quotes, but I don’t see it anywhere in that page, which is very misleading to do.

            It’s literally stated within the summary of the page; third paragraph from the bottom.

            That’s contradicted by the link content.

            Try clicking the links within the content to see if maybe you’re missing some context.

            Michigan

            The name of the state is hyperlinked, click on it and you’ll find section of the Michigan Legislature contains statutory age limits on marriage. The site linked from my quote is out of date because the minimum age is now 18. This is an absolute win and something to be celebrated, it just sucks that it took until 2023 to bump the age up and remove a judge’s ability to enter a child into marriage. I considered editing my quote to cross out Michigan, but that seemed dishonest. Can’t really win either way, apparently.

            Mississippi

            Let’s click the name of this state and we end up at a summary page with a specific comment:

            Minors under minimum age may obtain license with parental consent and approval of court. Minor females age 15 yrs. and older and males 17 yrs. and older but under 21 may obtain license with parental consent and court order.

            But since we’re “doing our own research” (you’re welcome), let’s not trust the content on a third party site and instead look up the listed section of the Mississippi code dealing with conditions of issuing a marriage license in which we find that

            If the male applicant is under seventeen (17) years of age or the female is under fifteen (15) years of age, and satisfactory proof is furnished to the judge of any circuit, chancery or county court that sufficient reasons exist and that the parties desire to be married to each other and that the parents or other person in loco parentis of the person or persons so under age consent to the marriage, then the judge of any such court in the county where either of the parties resides may waive the minimum age requirement and by written instrument authorize the clerk of the court to issue the marriage license to the parties if they are otherwise qualified by law.

            Same info! They’re not lying! Wait… That’s bad news. Damnit!

            There appears to be an amendment that I can’t tell if it’s passed or not, but it only raises the minimum age of girls (15) to that of boys (17). I refuse to say “men” and “women” because 17 is still a child.

            Washington

            Great news! Two months ago, Washington passed a law eliminating marriage of minors! I genuinely had no clue about this one. Obviously, the site wouldn’t have this update, but there you have it.

            Anyway, there you have it. The info you could’ve read for yourself, but chose not to before declaring yourself a victim of misinformation.

            HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!

          • BlueÆther@no.lastname.nz
            1·
            3 months ago

            Also, you put that text in quotes, but I don’t see it anywhere in that page, which is very misleading to do.

            It is at the bottom of the page though

    • LowleeKun@feddit.orgDeutsch
      5·
      3 months ago

      Can we not conflate religion, control over peoples authority and pedophilia? This is not about diddling children, this is about shackling people before they really can have a say in the matter. Crying about pedophilia is what the other side does too. It wont open anyones eyes to the true motives.

      • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
        8·
        3 months ago

        What makes you think its not both?

        Also the difference, its not conflating if its an actual issue.

        Catholic Priests and Republican Senators are statistically a lot more likely to diddle your kids than a transwoman.

        That’s why its conflation when they do it. Because they’re making up an issue to take away front he real ones.

        • LowleeKun@feddit.orgDeutsch
          4·
          3 months ago

          What makes me think it is not both?

          Well lets take a step back and look at how many pedophiles there are in the population. While we do not know the exact numbers the educated guesses, from rather too few studies that we have, range from 1% to 5%, most putting it at around 3%. I do not really believe that a tiny minority holds such powers as to influence politics or we would not have an AOC in the first place.

          In order to understand why there are people advocating for low ages of marriage i would do take a look at our younger past and ask, why WAS the age for marriage low? And the answer, while not much more pleasent, is much simpler than: we somehow have pedohiles leading the world in the shadows. It is much easier to secure marriages that way, because guess what, children have not much say in their lives. So a powerful or rich person can simply chose whom to marry, take a bunch of money and their victim has no power over the decision. It is terrible but it has not much to do with the sexuality of a minority.

          So in short i would say occams razor tells us that it is rather unlikely that these policies are pushed by pedophiles, even if some or even many of them might agree with the goal.

          I can not really talk about Republican Senators (as i am not an US citizen) but the reason why child abuse is rampant in the catholic church is because the instituational structures foster abuse. Abusers, in turn, tend to go for the easiest victims. Children sadly are not only easy victims, they are also in the care of those priests, leading to many cases of child abuse. I know it is not an easy pill to swallow, but most of these priests are simply put, predators that had children available to them. If they had to care for vulnerable adults, they might have had preferred those. If you are interested i can link you a study about how many perpetrators of child abuse are in fact not pedophiles.

          I know it is easy to see children getting the short end of the stick and to cry out “DAMN PEDOPHILIA” but it is really not helpful. There need not be any pedophiles for children to get abused, sexually or not. Let us keep that in mind while we all fight for more and better childrens rights.

          Edit: grammar

  • Crikeste@lemm.ee
    13·
    3 months ago

    Reminds me of America’s child genital inspection proposals. Why do conservatives have to be so weird?

  • tardigrada@beehaw.orgOP
    9·
    3 months ago

    Maybe I’m mistaken, but very often when a terrible incident like this one in Iraq or in any other non-Western country is posted, then anyone comments about the U.S., Europe, or anywhere in ‘the West’, and then a thread develops about how bad things are in Michigan, Illinois, and other Western areas. And this always goes in one direction.

    So don’t get me wrong, I don’t say that Western democracies are a perfect world (their democracies are indeed under threat), but this is a weird observation. But maybe I’m mistaken.